BILL NUMBER: SB 1562	CHAPTERED  09/29/00

	CHAPTER   925
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE   SEPTEMBER 29, 2000
	APPROVED BY GOVERNOR   SEPTEMBER 29, 2000
	PASSED THE SENATE   AUGUST 25, 2000
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY   AUGUST 21, 2000
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY   AUGUST 18, 2000
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY   AUGUST 11, 2000
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY   JULY 6, 2000
	AMENDED IN SENATE   MAY 24, 2000
	AMENDED IN SENATE   MAY 4, 2000
	AMENDED IN SENATE   MAY 3, 2000
	AMENDED IN SENATE   APRIL 5, 2000

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Burton

                        FEBRUARY 18, 2000

   An act to add and repeal Sections 21085.7 and 21151.10 of the
Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 1562, Burton.  Mitigation of projects through wetlands
restoration.
   (1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a
lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and
certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a
project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a
significant effect on the environment.  Existing law declares that it
is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect of the project.
   This bill would require the lead agency to include a detailed
statement of mitigation, with specified analyses, in an environmental
impact report for a specified airport project, if the environmental
impact report identifies as a proposed mitigation the payment of
funds to one or more public agencies to mitigate the impacts of the
project for which the lead agency of the airport project prepared the
document, and the agencies propose to use the funds for that
purpose.  The bill would require the lead agency of the airport
project to make the approval of the project and the payment of funds
for mitigation measures contingent upon a specified agreement between
the lead agency of the airport project and the public agency.
   The bill would also require the lead agency, if the project
includes more than one acre of fill in the San Francisco Bay, to
include in the environmental impact report an analysis of a form of
joint management of the airport by the city and county and the
Oakland International Airport, as an alternative to the project.  By
imposing these requirements on a lead agency, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
  (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state.  Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund
to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide
and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
  This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local
agency or school district are the result of a program for which
legislative authority was requested by that local agency or school
district, within the meaning of Section 17550 of the Government Code
and Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


  SECTION 1.  Section 21085.7 is added to the Public Resources Code,
to read:
   21085.7.  (a) (1) If an environmental impact report for a project
at an airport that is owned by a city and county and that is located
in another county identifies as a proposed mitigation measure the
acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of salt ponds and the lead
agency proposes the payment of funds to one or more public agencies
to mitigate the impacts of the proposed project and the public agency
or agencies propose to use those funds to acquire, enhance, and
restore land, the lead agency shall include in the environmental
impact report on the proposed project a detailed statement of the
mitigation measure, including all of the following:
   (A) An analysis of the relationship between the impacts of the
proposed project and the benefits of the proposed acquisition,
enhancement, and restoration of land that the payment of funds would
allow.
   (B) An analysis of the feasibility of the proposed acquisition,
enhancement, and restoration.
   (C)  A discussion of the expected impacts of the proposed
acquisition, enhancement, and restoration.
   (2) The detailed statement of the mitigation measure shall consist
of the following:
   (A) Information in existence at the time the environmental impact
report is prepared, including the restoration goals specific to salt
ponds as identified in the San Francisco Estuary Baylands Ecosystem
Goals Report published in 1999.
   (B) Information that is reasonably obtainable, including, but not
limited to, a hydrodynamic analysis of potential flood impacts, and
analyses regarding the potential for the following:
   (i) Changes to the waters and tidal currents of the southern
portions of the San Francisco Bay.
   (ii) Potential alterations to the San Francisco Bay floor.
   (iii) Related impacts on water quality.
   (3) If, at the time of the publication of the draft environmental
impact report, a restoration plan has not been adopted by a public
agency with jurisdiction to carry out the restoration project, the
lead agency for the airport project need not prepare a detailed
restoration plan or analyze the impacts of a restoration plan for the
lands proposed for acquisition, enhancement, and restoration;
however, the lead agency shall evaluate a conceptual restoration
plan, and shall fully evaluate a potentially feasible alternate
mitigation measure that does not depend on the salt ponds.
   (b) If the lead agency for the airport project approves the
proposed project and approves the payment of funds for the
acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of land as a mitigation
measure, it shall make both such approvals contingent upon an
agreement between the lead agency and the public agency or agencies
wherein the public agency or agencies agree to use the funds solely
for the following purposes:
   (1) The acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of the lands
identified by the lead agency in its detailed statement of the
mitigation measure.
   (2) The preparation and implementation of a restoration plan that,
at a minimum, mitigates the significant impact that would be
substantially lessened or avoided by implementation of the mitigation
measure as identified in the final environmental impact report
certified by the lead agency.
   (c) The agreement described in subdivision (b) shall identify a
feasible alternative mitigation measure to be implemented if the
restoration of all or a portion of the salt ponds proves to be
infeasible, as determined by the lead agency.
   (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to assess or
assign liability with respect to the salt ponds.
   (e) Funds for the costs of mitigation shall include the costs of
the environmental reviews conducted by a state agency of the
restoration plan prepared by a state agency.
   (f) This section shall only apply to the acquisition, enhancement,
and restoration of salt ponds located in the southerly portion of
the San Francisco Bay.
   (g) As used in this section, "acquisition, enhancement, and
restoration" also includes acquisition, enhancement, or restoration.

   (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2008, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2008, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 2.  Section 21151.10 is added to the Public Resources Code, to
read:
   21151.10.  (a) If an environmental impact report is prepared for a
project at an airport that is owned by a city and county and that is
located in another county that includes more than one acre of fill
in the San Francisco Bay, the environmental impact report shall
analyze, as an alternative to the project, a form of joint management
of that airport owned by the city and county and the Oakland
International Airport.  This joint management alternative shall
separately analyze an underground high-speed rail transit connection
and a high-speed ferry connection between the two airports and shall
utilize in both analyses all technological enhancements reasonably
expected to be available.  The analysis of the joint management
alternative shall include a meaningful evaluation, analysis, and
comparison of the alternative with the proposed project, and shall
assess the feasibility of the alternative notwithstanding that
changes in state law may be required for its implementation.  The
environmental impact report shall identify any changes in state law
that would be required in order to implement this alternative.
   (b) Nothing in this section or in Section 21085.7 shall be
interpreted in a manner that alters the lead agency's obligation to
comply with this division in connection with proposed mitigation
measures other than the mitigation measure described in Section
21085.7.
   (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2008, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2008, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 3.  The Legislature finds and declares that because of a
unique situation involving a construction project at San Francisco
International Airport, a statute of general applicability cannot be
made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the
California Constitution and that a special statute is therefore
necessary.
  SEC. 4.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district are the result of a program for which legislative authority
was requested by that local agency or school district, within the
meaning of Section 17550 of the Government Code and Section 6 of
Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
